A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » FITS
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 20th 07, 04:47 AM posted to sci.astro.fits
Steve Allen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default [fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard

On Sun 2007-08-19T20:40:45 -0600, Doug Tody hath writ:
Regarding versioning - I don't think FITS has changed enough to warrant
versioning.


I agree. The horse is out of the barn on all of these issues, meaning
that neither writers nor readers have been constrained to particular
requirements, so everyone already may have to support them, but
nobody can demand it.

Picking up what has already been expressed, aside from "SHOULD", on
the issues of particular controversy can the FITS standard include
language akin to that which has always been in the Fortran standards;
i.e., "the result is undefined"?

Perhaps not, perhaps that's implicit, for in a Fortran compiler there
are specific actions implied by every statement, whereas in FITS some
interpretations of the document meaning have always been subject to
implementation details. That may be a question of scope of effort on
which it's not easy to get complete agreement in the community.

I share the opinion that I would like to see FITS files be
sufficiently regimented that they can be sucked into a data structure
which resembles a normalized relational database, but that notion
simply was not there from the start. Again, that sort of thing
could be accommodated by adding a registry of conventions and a way
of asserting which conventions are in use.

Files asserting that they conform to certain conventions could be
verified and read more straightforwardly than a totally generic FITS
file. And again this is already implicit, for in the case of FITS
files written for a particular purpose, the associated reading
software ignores certain aspects of the file structure.

I don't think can be anything that prevents us from explicitly
declaring that certain FITS files are subsets of the FITS standard
which conform to a specific vocabulary.

But I'm gonna stop typing now, for in a few moments Endeavour and
ISS are going overhead in close formation.

--
Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855
University of California Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard Doug Tody FITS 0 August 18th 07 03:42 PM
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard Boud Roukema FITS 0 August 18th 07 09:27 AM
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard Doug Tody FITS 0 August 18th 07 04:15 AM
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard Jonathan McDowell FITS 0 August 17th 07 09:32 PM
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard William Pence FITS 2 July 24th 07 04:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.